of the facility would actually read greater financial benefit for the city, particularly when you take into account that should the city retain ownership of the land, the also retain all the ownership obligations, including taxes and additional liabilities as remaining owner of the parcel. also, from the boys and girls clubs perspective, as they are raising philanthropic dollars to construct this clubhouse, also potentially looking at financing mechanisms and that are much easier when they have the ownership of the property, rather than a long-term lease. so in the interest in seeing this glove house built and is still wanting to do something that would ensure that that would occur, and then also looking at the financial repercussions of a lease versus a wholesale sale. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am happy about the amendments put in. the largely address a lot of the

issues that i brought up several weeks ago, including extending its to potential commercial developments. i was just wondering how we determine the best efforts? >> certainly. there were a couple reasons that using reasonably commercial efforts was used. the first is that, from the ceqa perspective, the city is in an interesting perspective, both selling and in the proprietary capacity, and eventually evaluating a project in the regulatory capacity. reasonably commercial efforts was seen as a preferable term. the other point, as well as the purchase and sale agreement goes into great detail as to what constitutes a reasonably commercial effort. under the advise me that the city attorney, that was a more defensible position and terminology to use. 3 can you go -- supervisor kim:

can you going to have that was described? >> certainly, i will have to get my notes. supervisor kim: we can go to the budget analyst report -- oh. supervisor chu: why don't we go to the budget analyst report rawl she goes through that. >> certainly. through the chair, supervisor kim, supervisor wiener, this item was before you before, and there was an overview given of what all the amendments are. therefore, we would just note that while we acknowledge that the proposed amendments to the sale agreement significantly improves the financial impacts on the city, we have changed our recommendations there to an approval of the proposed resolution. it is now the policy decision for the board, because the proposed self for the parcel is

$2.5 million is still 5.9% less than the revised estimated market price of $8.4 million. the real estate division did not competitively solicit any other non-profit agencies or 4-private developers to purchase the subject property or conduct a competitive auction for the highest bidder in accordance with the previous board of supervisors resolution, as is the usual procedure when the city sells city-on property. the real estate division and the office of economic and workforce development cannot conduct a separate formal or public planning process to determine the best use of parcel f. the sales agreement does not require the boys and girls club to obtain a certificate of occupancy until seven years after the date of sale, and the city will not receive the $2.5 million sale proceeds until 30 days after the conditional use permit is approved or 24 months

after the proposed resolution approved. therefore, we consider the decision to be a policy matter for the board. >> my apologies. i think the holidays might have got the best of me. i am having a hard time locating that document. i am happy to follow up, and we have asked the city attorney to join me. supervisor chu: let's go to public comment. then we will come back to you. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item, number 10? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas dep, and i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. i would like to speak in favor of this resolution. i would like to take this opportunity to thank the boys and girls club for all the good work they have done throughout san francisco. when i was in elementary school, i was a longtime member of the

boys and girls club near haight street. one thing i learned from being in the club is you have to defend yourself when you think other people try to take advantage of you. so it taught me a lesson which i use every day when i come to city hall. the boys and girls club should be allowed to run at this new club as they see fit, and listening to different restrictions that have been discussed it makes me feel a little uneasy. it is obviously, from my point of view, that the boys and girls club will have plenty of users at this facility, so i do not think that there should be excessive restrictions on its use. in the past, the boys and girls club had expanded to hunters point, and in my opinion, that was long overdue. and i kind of wonder why it took so long for an obvious choice

for boys club in that part of this city. in terms of this facility, i do not think it is a good idea for the city to try to impose too many restrictions on the club, to run it as it sees fit. i think is obvious that the club will be heavily used. [bell rings] and i think it is also logical to assume that there will be many instances where local homeless population will, in a certain sense, use the club for valid reasons. i do not know whether that has been discussed or not, but i thing, obviously, people will wander into the club for good reasons and the club should have the flexibility to deal with what it needs to deal with. thank you. [bell rings] supervisor chu: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning. rob connolly, president of boys and girls clubs. i just wanted to thank you for

the back and forth on this issue. we're happy to present the amendments. we're very comfortable with the agreement at this point. we hope that you will support selling the parcel, and we look forward to executing on all the agreements. as i said before when i have been here, we are a wonder 20- year-old institution. we have history here in san francisco. we have every reason to execute on every one of the agreements we have before you. we do a lot of business in the city, and you can trust we're going to keep our commitments on everything. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. are there any members of the public who would like to speak on item number 10? seeing none, public comment is closed. ok, we will return to the question that supervisor kim asked. >> thank you for the patients. section 4.2d, the grim reads as

follows -- represents and warrants as follows, section 1, it shall commit the financial and personnel resources necessary to title the last time we obtained the entitlement to meet the benchmark. section to end up, good-faith pursue all entitlements and be responsible for applying for and obtaining alt entitlements from any city regulatory agency. without first obtaining cities prior authorization. at the address specified in this agreement. at the same time, delivery to any such city regulatory agency. buyer shall not seek entitlement from non-city regulatory agency without obtaining prior authorization. section four, empire solely responsible for all costs including but not limited to fees for attorneys, engineers, consultants, and other professionals related to the development and construction of the project as the fine, which includes a resident or component.

buyers of no claims against the city for any reimbursement for costs. buyers are under obligations and shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this agreement. supervisor kim: thank you. i also had a second question to you might have addressed this a few weeks ago, but i do not recall. what is the rationale for allowing the boys and girls club seven years to obtain a certificate of occupancy? >> you notice there's quite a big gap between the requirements for submitting applications and then the final requirement for having final construction. much of that is kind of allowing the city's own discretionary processes in evaluating -- again, the city as a regulator allowing the process to move unfettered. it is an interesting scenario, because the city benefits financially when there is a transaction ever residential or commercial component. there was the submission of applications, which is under the control of the boys and girls

club, and tight deadlines as far as environmental applications, and as far as limiting applications for building permits but also acknowledging that the city has its own processes for the actual construction of the building. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor kim. we have opened and closed public comment on this item. if there are no other questions, this item is before the committee. supervisor kim: i just want to say, i do appreciate the work that has gone into this contract. i just want to state that a very much support the outcome of what has occurred. as someone that worked with young people, i think that we have an inadequate number of services and also land parcels that are dedicated to serving youth. i know that this will greatly benefit both the city and also the district representative i am a huge fan of the boys and girls clubs in both the tenderloin and

treasure island. their clubhouses are amazing centers for the community. i think this is a value added. to me, the processes where i got hung up, and i am kind of being a stickler peter i really do not want to see a person go out again that is not competitively bid. later, at a member of the public or another nonprofit is to ask why i supported something, a measure, i do not really have that to go back upon. some of the amendments put in, the percentages do not seem to have an actual measurement or calculation. i understand it was through negotiation, but there was a competitively bid process, i think there would be stronger support with this moving forward. i currently plan on supporting this, but because of the process that this went through prior, i am going to make a motion to move this without recommendation to the full board. supervisor chu: thank you,

supervisor kim. >> apologies to the city attorney advised there's one additional amendment to the resolution. if i may read that in, and this is whereas clause number four. as i previously read, i described the resident to component of up to 30 units. the change would change that to a residential component of 30 units and not including up to. supervisor chu: thank you for the clarification bit likable commons. i want to thank supervisor kim and want to echo some of the same concerns that i have had with this project from the beginning when it was introduced here. i do think that the comments we made were well received and actually did get implemented in terms of changes to your contract, which i think makes this transaction a lot more palatable compared to where it was before. i like the fact that we have extended the lease used to 40 years, instead of 30 but that provides more security of the

public benefit going to the community. in terms of potentially as sale, the fact that we're selling this property at a below market rate and the potential for us to benefit back if this property is ever sold with an upside of 40% or the sharing of 40% of the sale price or 50% based on commercial participation makes me feel much more comfortable about that lower price or the non-market reprise that we're selling at. it helps, but did not the best. in terms of having development, i think that is a useful change. the buyback option is a no- brainer and a good one to have included in there. there was a public process for the market octavia plan. we have made some of these some of the changes to the contract. i could get comfortable with this item. i will be supporting supervisor kim's motion to send the item

forward without recommendation. i do think this is a much better proposal than it was before. some want to appreciate that. i do think that this will be a project that i will support ultimately at the board, so i do want to indicate that as well. we do have a number of amendments to make to the resolution. just a clarification from the city attorney. most of the changes are reflective, i guess in the underlying contracts, which we do not have to amend, but we're adding in the resolution changes, which will not be a substantive change. correct? ok. i believe that it has been read into the record with those amendments would be to the resolution. and you will provide a copy of those amendments to our clerk. so we have an accurate reading. and we can do the resolution amendments without objection. and then it to the motion to send the item forward without recommendation as amendmeed, we will do that also without

objection. thank you. item 11. >> item number 11, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code sections 21c.2 threw 21c.6 and adding section 21c.7 to specify the city contracts for services that are subject to the city's prevailing rate of wage requirement, consolidate consistent standards for determining and enforcing prevailing rate of wage requirements in all covered contracts, providing all employment transaction times for workers under successor contracts to all covered contracts, and provide that all work on cover contracts be performed by employees and not independent contractors. supervisor chu: thank you. we have been joined by supervisor wiener, the sponsor of this legislation, a key sponsor. so i would like to offer the supervisor in the opening comments. supervisor wiener: thank you, and happy new year, everyone.

so this item was in before the committee in in december. briefly, as a reminder, these are amendments to the prevailing wage ordinance. the few things brought in the types of contracts that are covered. it does a fair amount of cleanup and consolidation for consistency with in the ordinance. it creates a six-month transition period when the city changes contractors, and it requires that certain contracts that the vendors have employees and not in the pettitte contractors, because defining an employee as an end and the contractor can be a way to get around prevailing wage requirements. at the last hearing, i made a number of amendments to the legislation which it then requires a continuance. that is why we're here today.

over the last few weeks, we have been in discussion in around the janitorial aspects of the prevailing wage ordinance with hsa, dph, as well as several nonprofits, centering primarily around the legislation elimination of the exclusion from the prevailing wage requirements to nonprofits. a very broad exemption to the we did remove that. this has to do with janitorial work. i want to read this in context because when a lot of people here prevailing wage, they assume instead of making minimum wage, $10 an hour, they will not be making $30 or $40 an hour, and they make certain assumptions and generalizations about what prevailing wage means. i want to be very specific for janitors. prevailing wage, i believe, is approximately $12.75 or $12.80

an hour. the distinctions we're talking about our minimum wage, which is a little over $10 an hour now. i believe the nonprofit wage is about $11 an hour. and this is $12.75 approximately an hour. we're not talking about a distinction between low wage and middle-class wages. we're talking about very low and really, really low. unfortunately, we have seen a race to the bottom line in this country generally, and i think it is completely appropriate to require that hard-working and janitors who are frequently raising their families at be paid something approaching a decent wage. i am offering two amendments today, which i am in formed by the city attorney will not require a continuance. the first is, and i have submitted this one in writing --

page 294. it is a partial reinstatement of the nonprofit exemption, to cover nonprofit organizations who are providing work experience for persons with disabilities. it reads -- a, exclusion peri od, the shall not apply to a contract with janitorial services with a nonprofit organization to provide work experience for persons with disabilities. this is to address some concerns around some nonprofits that are providing janitorial services for people who have disabilities and are getting that kind of work experience. the second amendment, which did not make it into what i submitted in writing, so i will read it into the record. simply have -- i think it is already in the legislation. but to be crystal clear, this is not intended to extend prevailing wage requirements to, for example, homeless shelters

or organizations that have are doing their own janitorial work internally. better not contacting with the city to provide those services. the legislative digest, the following sentences have been at it in under the janitorial section. there's no intent to broaden the contract beyond context entered into the city for janitorial services on property owned or leased by the city. for example, no intend to include contracts entered into by the city would not brought it to provide shelter for the homeless, even at the shelter provider is required to keep the promises clean by using janitors or others. so the language that i am asking to be amended in to the ordinance would be at page two, line three. it would to the following -- this section does not extend to a contract beyond those entered into by the city, specifically

for janitorial services on property owned or leased by the city. again, i think that is already in there, but just to make it crystal clear, we're putting that sentence in. those are the two amendments that i am proposing. colleagues, i would ask that the amendments be incorporated into the legislation, and i would ask the colleagues, that you, i hope, support the legislation. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor wiener. are there any department heads are any other presentations you would be introducing today on this item? supervisor wiener: no. supervisor chu: thank you. for me, i have a couple of questions i would like to ask. the religious clarification question. in terms of the issues with dph and hsa, this is actually, i think it goes to the amendments that you're suggesting, and i think we're on the same page

about where we want to go with this and to make sure that it is explicit and clear. the idea was that there certain departments, like dph or hsa that might have contracts with master lease or sro's. there are youth facilities were the primary purpose is not janitorial, but it might be a different residential use or there is a janitorial component to it. if this were to apply in would require prevailing wage for that, that i think the impact is going to be much larger than we even know at this moment, which would be a big concern for me in terms of the budget and how we would actually do this. i know that from conversations with the sponsor then it is not the intent. if i could ask either dph or hsa to explain where your concerns are and make sure that, from the city attorney's point of view, that that concern is explicitly allayed in the amendments, that would be helpful.

>> yes, director contracts of the human services agency. thank you, supervisor chu and supervisor wiener for the admissions and amendments to have made. i think once we incorporate this language into the amended ordinance, and we will certainly work with the city attorney to make sure that the language does meet our needs, then i think we're fine with our nonprofits and the unintended consequences that the writing of this could have caused. so i think we're in pretty good shape with this amended language, and i would like to thank you for that. supervisor chu: ok, in terms that the contracts you generally see, they would generally be residential facilities that we contract with someone come into the master lease for single individuals or may be individuals where medical services are provided on site a janitorial is included as part of it. it might include a service for the my own the facility themselves and are providing a

residential use on that site for youth, for example, were the city my contract for that service where there is a janitorial component to it. but according to this legislative change, this amendment, you think that it is adequate to make sure that, as intended by the author, that is not included, correct? >> yes, we believe we do. it would cover the shelters, the master lease hotels, and all these supportive housing that the city provides support for which has those services. once we hammer out that language that is sufficient mighting this goes a long way to getting there, then i think it will definitely minimize the impact of this. supervisor chu: great. >> thank you. supervisor chu: this is a question perhaps to olsc. so the legislation does a number of different things. it does make sure that we eliminate any exclusions that

deal with conflicts when there is prevailing wage versus underlining negotiated contracts. there is, again, the elimination of the nonprofit exemption, except that we have clarified language for dph and hsa were leading the attack will be much more far-reaching. the component about the small business exception. a retention policy that goes for 90 days to 180 days. and there is also changes in consolidation of general standards and enforcement, which makes sense to me. and setting of the prevailing wage. in terms of the employee requirement, this is a question that i had, because i think the intention of this legislation is to make sure that we are closing in the loopholes with regards to what the worker, whether you are a janitor or whether you are a hauler, ultimately gets paid. we want them to get paid the prevailing wage, because that was the intent of the prevailing wage legislation. my question is, the legislation, the way that we do if it is to

say that we cannot have independent contractors, per se, but they have to be employees of the contractor. i am wondering, why is that distinction necessary? why do we say that they have to be an employee? what is the value of that it the intent is to make sure that everyone is being paid the prevailing wage? i am think you have had experience and can speak to that issue. >> at good morning. manager of the city's office of labor standards enforcement. the prevailing wage ordinance that covers the hauling up by a solid was passed in 2006, and the intent was that the city would set a prevailing wage rate that had to be paid for all truckers to perform that work. for the city. the office of labor standards

enforcement has twice audited that contract, and there is a loophole in that contract that, excuse the pun, but contractor driving a mack truck through. that is the definition of employee in that ordinance exempts managerial or supervisory role persons, a person who exercises those duties. so, whereas the prevailing wage is paid to workers who are in an employer/employee relationship, truckers who are owner- operators, and at this point the current contractor only offers employment opportunities to owner-operators, are paid by the load instead of by the hour at a rate that, when you convert it

to hourly, is more than the prevailing wage rate, but that owner-operator it is responsible for their own expenses, the cost of their vehicle, the insurance on their vehicle, the cost of gas, tolls, licensing, and more. and when you take out the owner- operator's expenses, what is left for wages and benefits or the prevailing wage rate, it is significantly less than the prevailing wage. we have let of examples where it is no more than minimum wage. so the whole intent of the prevailing wage ordinance is undermined, and it is only by refighting employee -- refighting employee that we're able to ensure that the prevailing wage and benefit is actually paid to the person that

performs that work. so in the amendment, you will see that the prevailing wage must be paid to any individual who performs work under the contract, and they must be in an employer/employee relationship to try to address that loophole. supervisor chu: i guess the definitions are little bit fuzzy in my head. the way that i am is seeing it, if you are currently an employer and individuals who work for you, you can have an individual who is an employee of you. you provide benefits, salary, file tax returns, summit taxes, all these other things that are part of that relationship. there are other instances, it sounds like, where you have an employer who does not necessarily have employees in that technical world or that technical way, but instead has perhaps an indepde